This is a first draft of questions that I am formulating. I would
appreciate response, off list if people so choose. But I ask these
questions in all sincerity.
1. We hear that our nation must exercise military action against the
Taliban because of the evil nature of the Taliban. If this is so, why
was there no talk of war against the Taliban on September 10th or any
day prior?
2. If we take military action against the Taliban because we think it
is an evil, oppressive, regime, is this nation then not taking an action
that says that we are the judge of all other nations? Why then couldn't
another nation go to war against us because they think that our
government is evil and oppressive? Who is to be the judge of the
governments of other nations? Where does the going to war because of
dislike of other nations or their governments stop?
3. Should we take military action against the Taliban because of our
opinion of its government and its values, then innocent people will be
killed. That is the reality of war. How then does that differ from
someone killing innocent people in our country because of their opinion
of our government and its values? Because of the loss of innocent life,
what would distinguish us - other than our opinion of ourselves - from
those who did the evil acts of September 11th? Or does anyone think we
can to war without having any civilians killed?
4. A reason cited often about the evil of the Taliban is their
treatment of women. I agree that their treatment is horrible -
according to our understandings. Do we possess universal truth and
stand ready to wage war against those whose values differ from ours?
>From the viewpoint of the fundamentalists who condemn our nation, the
events of September 11th were justified because of what they perceive
as the corruption of our society/culture and point to our alcoholism,
drugs, materialism, and values, and because of our corruptness that is
so world-wide pervasive. Thus, they were justified in these heinous acts
of terrorism. If we feel that their acts of terrorism against our
people - because of their view of how we live - was wrong, then how can
we justify military action against them because of how they live?
5. If we deplore the treatment of women under the Taliban, how will war
with Afghanistan be good for the women of Afghanistan? Women and
children will be killed in our taking military action against the
Taliban. Will their deaths improve their lives?
5a. Do we have weapons of war that will kill only adult males and spare
the women and children? And would that be any better?
5b. Are there ways that do not include war that we act on behalf of the
women of Afghanistan? Maybe if given their choice, they would prefer to
forgo education rather than suffer war and have us find alternate ways
to assist them.
6. The United States is precious to us all because of what it stands
for, what is basic to our self understanding. A basic American
principle is "innocent until proven guilty." Read the Constitution -
the 7th Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury for a civil suit
of $20 or more. Are we less concerned about having a presentation of
the evidence against bin Laden than we are for $20?
We have had yet no proof offered of Osama bin Laden's complicity in the
terrorism of September 11th. Do we adhere to the basic principles of
America only when the times are easy and abandon what makes America
great by casting out our basic principles when times are very difficult?
Why not lay out our evidence against bin Laden in the war crimes
tribunal in the Hague, or in the United Nations, offering bin Laden the
choice to be present and rebut the evidence? We are defending the
United States after all, and the American way of life, so let us do it
the American way, as Americans, proud of our Constitution. Let me quote
the 6th Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense. "
If we cannot lay out the evidence before the world before we take
actions, we are violating the 6th Amendment, we violate the
Constitution, and we do harm to our own selves and what makes the United
States what it is. Are we ready to abandon the rule of law for the rule
of revenge? Are we ready to abandon our self-control in the heat of the
legitimate emotions we are feeling?
6a. For those who say that we cannot lay out evidence because it would
compromise security, not only does that violate the Constitution but it
is the tired old excuse of every dictatorship, every oppressive regime,
ever. In a free society, in our country, we do not have "secret
evidence." "Secret evidence" was the mainstay of the Soviet Union, Nazi
Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda, South Africa under apartheid, perhaps the
Taliban for all I know. I love my country and do not want it to go that
route. Do you?
6b. If we wage military action against Afghanistan to get at bin Laden,
we are waging war against a people - and thus innocent people will die.
How is that different from the deaths of innocent people on September
11?
6c. If Chile were to demand Henry Kissinger be handed over to a certain
death because of his well-documented role in the CIA's involvement in
the overthrow of Allende, and the terrorism that followed done by our
chosen leader, Pinochet, 3,000 Chileans "disappeared," would we turn
Kissinger over? Would Chile have the right to go to war against us? If
Chile says, if you support him, we will wage war on you, will we say,
well, ok, here you go, take Henry?
6d. There have been ample studies of the effects of war on people. The
results are counter-productive to the intended goal. People are not
cowered, they get united in their opposition to those who wage war
against them. We are not cowered by the events of September 11th; it
brought us together. London was not cowered by the Blitz; it brought
London together. Dresden was not cowered by the fire raids and carpet
bombing; they fought all the harder. Why do we think that if we take
military action against Afghanistan, the Taliban will crumble rather
than have its people rally around it?
7. What happens if bin Laden was not involved? What happens if it
turns out others were responsible? Do we go after bin Laden because of
his associations? That would violate basic principles in American
law. Again, the proofs must be laid out.
8. We strike at Afghanistan because we victims of terrorism. In large
parts of the world, we will be seen as the evil actor and aggressor for
the overkill of our response, and for terror or war that we will inflict
as a natural consequence of war. Thus there will be those who will seek
vengeance on us through acts of terrorism against us. Thus our military
actions will not make us safer, but more vulnerable. Violence begets
violence; the blood of dead Afghans will be the nourishment for others
to take up the cause of terrorism against the United States. When does
the cycle of violence end, and when will we break it?
9. Timothy McVeigh referred to the death of the children in the bombing
of the Murrah Building as "collateral damage." We were all correctly
appalled at his language and his thinking. In war, in the military
action that we propose, our government has already said that of course
the nature of war means collateral damage - the deaths of children and
other innocents. Why is collateral damage wrong when done by McVeigh
and right when done by our military acting on behalf of our nation?
10. Back to the Constitution which is the essence of what it means to
be an American - a nation of laws, not people. Do we violate our own
legal procedures by having no evidence, no proofs, no place where we lay
these things out for the international community to judge, no place for
bin Laden to hear the evidence against him (6th Amendment), no place to
gain a verdict in our favor that would give such moral force to our
cause of seeking punishment on those who did these terrorist acts on
September 11?
Law, and our following that law, following the covenant of the
Constitution that makes us a nation of law, this defines the United
States and makes us the beacon of justice that we are. It is essential
to our nation especially at this time to adhere to our Constitution.
There must be a trial - before the War Crimes Tribunal, in absentia for
bin Laden if he so chooses, or in the United Nations, but someplace.
England and Libya came to agreement on how to try those accused in the
Lockerbee bombing. We can certainly do the same if we seek that route.
We must confirm our self-control and not act impulsively out of the
emotions of the events.
The rule of law is essential to America. The last question: do you know
the words to "America," the words to "O beautiful for spacious skies."
I provide them for those who do not know all three verses:
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain;
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood,
>From sea to shining sea.
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine.
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self control,
Thy liberty in law.
